(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)
(1) This appeal was placed before us from Sine-die list for hearing and disposal. The case was first fixed for hearing on 27/09/2011, since the respondent was not present, appellant was directed to issue notice to the respondent. Accordingly, notices of next date were issued to the parties on 19/11/2011. On 14/12/2011, both the parties are present. At the time of hearing, Adv.U.B.Wavikar for the appellant and Adv. Ms.Urmila Sanil for the respondent were present. With the consent of the parties, this appeal was heard at the stage of admission for final disposal.
(2) This appeal is directed against the order dated 06/03/2006 in Consumer Complaint 180/2002, Mr.Ramesh Sarvaiya Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ors. By this order, South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (‘District Forum’ in short) dismissed the complaint of the appellant with no costs.
(3) Contention of the appellant is that late Smt. Meena Sarvaiya, (wife of the appellant) the original complainant had subscribed to mediclaim No.112500/48/99/04469 issued by the respondent insurance company. The policy was to expire on 25/08/2000. Well before expiry date of the policy, the appellant sent a cheque for `2,975/- dated 26/07/2000 to the respondent company as premium for renewal of the policy with a sum assured for `2 lacs. However, the insurance company declined to renew the policy in view of adverse claim experience. Therefore, the appellant filed Consumer Complaint No.180/02 against the respondent. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the opponent insurance company cannot be forced to renew the policy nor the complainant is entitled to any reimbursement or relief. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order of the District Forum, the appellant preferred this appeal.
(4) Admittedly, late smt.Meena Sarvaiya contributed the subject mediclaim policy since 1993. Mediclaim policy bearing No. No.112500/48/99/04469 was to expire on 25/08/2000 and therefore sent a cheque for `2,975/- on account of renewal premium. However, the respondent insurance company taking into account the previous continuous claims of the mediclaim of the late Meena Sarvaiya decided not to renew the subject policy.
(5) Heard the learned advocates of the parties and perused the record. The claim of the appellant is that the respondent insurance company cannot refuse to renew the mediclaim policy as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Biman Krishna Bose Vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Hon.Apex Court’s judgment relates to arbitrary rejection and renewal of medical policy as the insured taken Insurance Company to Court for non-payment of claim. In the instant case, the Insurance Company honoured repeated mediclaim of late insured considering the case of insured as bad claim, Insurance Company informed their decision of non-renewal of policy on 08/08/2000 i.e. well before the expiry date of mediclaim policy and returned the cheque to the appellant received in advance as renewal premium. Even though, with the insistence of appellant, Insurance Company further decided to renew the policy by loading with 500% premium amount, but appellant did not approach the Insurance Company office.
(6) Decision of the Insurance Company not to renew the mediclaim policy was taken well in advance and communicated before expiry of mediclaim policy, therefore no arbitration cannot be attributed. Moreover, insurance is a contract between the parties and therefore the parties cannot be forced to enter the contract against their interest. Therefore, no directions can be issued to Insurance Company to enter into a contract against their interest. In these circumstances, argument of learned advocate for the appellant to issue direction to Insurance Company is not acceptable.
(7) We do not find any merit in the appeal and the impugned order does not call for intervention. We are of the view that the appeal is not tenable. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal stands dismissed. Impugned order dated 06/03/2006 passed in Consumer Complaint No.180/2002 decided by South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai is hereby confirmed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 13th January, 2012.
